Profit vs play – the fiduciary duty of gaming companies

Micro-transactions. DLC. Season Passes. The gaming industry has moved on from the days of shipping a finished game on a cartridge, and patches and monetization is the new normal.

As someone fascinated by the business side of gaming, the contrast of loving games and hating companies is reaching a fevered pitch. Gamers demand more complexity, better graphics, and novel like stories at a price point that hasn’t changed since the 1990’s. AAA releases cost millions of dollars to make and market, and yet a 4K game with 100+ hours of story retails for less than Super Mario 64 did at launch.

There’s been several debates about this topic here at AiPT that I’ve been trying to work into an article, but luckily someone far smarter took it on.

Does everything HAVE to revolve around maximum profit? Why are they ruining fun like this? In short, because they are obliged to, by law. It’s called “fiduciary duty” (Not related to Call of Duty) and it’s likely the reason why we are seeing all these companies chasing the money into a direction that we, the gamer, might not like.

This blog, which digs deep into the dichotomy of companies making creative entertainment and being beholden to shareholders is a fascinating peek into what’s driving the bottom line. Curious about EA’s motives or want some insight into why more companies are including pay for play models or lootboxes? You should absolutely check out this piece. Tell them we sent you.